What’s this? Seems like Liam Byrne has emerged from his policy review with an idea. He
calls it, in an article for the Guardian today, ‘something for
something’:
In truth, it’s not a new or surprising idea at all. Labour’s brain-in-exile, James Purnell, urged this sort of thinking on his party in a speech last April, which I blogged at the time — although he called it the ‘contributory principle’, and he spelt it out more effectively than Byrne does today. And it just so happens to be one of the few areas of welfare policy where Labour can offer something slightly different from the government. The coalition’s overall welfare agenda (some of it inherited from Labour, although you wouldn’t guess by listening to Ed Miliband) has proven so popular that Byrne can merely cede to it rather than attack it. This contributory thing, it could be a rare needle to press into IDS’s side.‘…“something for something” means reward for those who are desperately trying to do the right thing, saving for the future and trying to build a stable, secure home. Right now, these families are offered too little reward and incentive — in social housing and long-term savings — for the kind of behaviour that is the bedrock of a decent society.’
However, it’s still doubtful what Labour plan to do with this idea, for there are precious few details in Byrne’s article. The main question is whether they will follow Purnell’s advice of funding it ‘out of the cash transfers and universal benefits [that claimants] value much less and which are insufficient in times of need, but marginal when things are going well.’ Which is to say, ditch the middle-class benefits that people don’t need, and push the money towards benefits that they might, in times of hardship.
Judging by Byrne’s rhetoric — ‘families’, ‘squeeze on living standards’, etc, etc — I doubt he’ll make that leap. Which is a shame, as universal benefits should already have been a casualty of austerity. Parliament could do with a few more MPs questioning their sanctity.
Comments